Supreme Court orders new analysis of Trump’s Jan. 6 charges | WORLD
Sound journalism, grounded in facts and Biblical truth | Donate

Supreme Court orders new analysis of Trump’s Jan. 6 charges

The U.S. Supreme Court Associated Press/Photo by Jose Luis Magana

Supreme Court orders new analysis of Trump’s Jan. 6 charges

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ordered the district court to determine whether the charges prosecutors have leveled against Trump pertain to official or unofficial acts. The court ruled 6-3 that presidents cannot face criminal prosecution for official acts they take while in the Oval Office. But the court also found that the protection did not apply to a president’s unofficial acts while in office.

The Supreme Court had ruled decades ago in Nixon v. Fitzgerald that presidents cannot be subjected to civil lawsuits for actions that fall within their official duties. The Supreme Court ruled Monday that its 1982 opinion also applies to criminal cases. Chief Justice John Roberts authored the majority opinion. Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor dissented.

Prosecutors charged Trump last year with criminally obstructing, and conspiring to obstruct, Congress’ certification of the 2020 election results. They alleged that he attempted to defraud the United States and conspired to take away Americans’ right to have their votes count. Trump has consistently denied wrongdoing. He appealed to the Supreme Court after both a district court judge and an appeals court panel ruled that prosecutors could proceed with their criminal case against him.

What did both sides argue to the Court before this? Trump argued to the Supreme Court that his actions regarding the certification of the 2020 election fell within the outer perimeter of his official duties and that he shouldn’t face prosecution for them. He also argued that the Justice Department couldn’t prosecute him if the Senate had previously acquitted him in an impeachment trial on similar allegations.

Meanwhile, federal prosecutors argued that Trump’s actions regarding the 2020 election certification were criminal and that presidential immunity does not shield a president from later prosecution for crimes they committed while in office.

Josh Schumacher

Josh is a breaking news reporter for WORLD. He’s a graduate of World Journalism Institute and Patrick Henry College.

An actual newsletter worth subscribing to instead of just a collection of links. —Adam

Sign up to receive The Sift email newsletter each weekday morning for the latest headlines from WORLD’s breaking news team.

Please wait while we load the latest comments...